Reverse engineering the Intel 386 processor's register cell

The groundbreaking Intel 386 processor (1985) was the first 32-bit processor in the x86 line. It has numerous internal registers: general-purpose registers, index registers, segment selectors, and more specialized registers. In this blog post, I look at the silicon die of the 386 and explain how some of these registers are implemented at the transistor level. The registers that I examined are implemented as static RAM, with each bit stored in a common 8-transistor circuit, known as "8T". Studying this circuit shows the interesting layout techniques that Intel used to squeeze two storage cells together to minimize the space they require.

The diagram below shows the internal structure of the 386. I have marked the relevant registers with three red boxes. Two sets of registers are in the segment descriptor cache, presumably holding cache entries, and one set is at the bottom of the data path. Some of the registers at the bottom are 32 bits wide, while others are half as wide and hold 16 bits. (More registers with different circuits, but I won't discuss them in this post.)

The 386 with the main functional blocks labeled. Click this image (or any other) for a larger version. I created this image using a die photo from Antoine Bercovici.

The 6T and 8T static RAM cells

First, I'll explain how a 6T or 8T static cell holds a bit. The basic idea behind a static RAM cell is to connect two inverters into a loop. This circuit will be stable, with one inverter on and one inverter off, and each inverter supporting the other. Depending on which inverter is on, the circuit stores a 0 or a 1.

Two inverters in a loop can store a 0 or a 1.

To write a new value into the circuit, two signals are fed in, forcing the inverters to the desired new values. One inverter receives the new bit value, while the other inverter receives the complemented bit value. This may seem like a brute-force way to update the bit, but it works. The trick is that the inverters in the cell are small and weak, while the input signals are higher current, able to overpower the inverters.1 The write data lines (called bitlines) are connected to the inverters by pass transistors.2 When the pass transistors are on, the signals on the write lines can pass through to the inverters. But when the pass transistors are off, the inverters are isolated from the write lines. Thus, the write control signal enables writing a new value to the inverters. (This signal is called a wordline since it controls access to a word of storage.) Since each inverter consists of two transistors7, the circuit below consists of six transistors, forming the 6T storage cell.

Adding pass transistor so the cell can be written.

The 6T cell uses the same bitlines for reading and writing. Adding two transistors creates the 8T circuit, which has the advantage that you can read one register and write to another register at the same time. (I.e. the register file is two-ported.) In the 8T cell below, two additional transistors (G and H) are used for reading. Transistor G buffers the cell's value; it turns on if the inverter output is high, pulling the read output bitline low.3 Transistor H is a pass transistor that blocks this signal until a read is performed on this register; it is controlled by a read wordline.

Schematic of a storage cell. Each transistor is labeled with a letter.

To form registers (or memory), a grid is constructed from these cells. Each row corresponds to a register, while each column corresponds to a bit position. The horizontal lines are the wordlines, selecting which word to access, while the vertical lines are the bitlines, passing bits in or out of the registers. For a write, the vertical bitlines provide the 32 bits (along with their complements). For a read, the vertical bitlines receive the 32 bits from the register. A wordline is activated to read or write the selected register.

Static memory cells (8T) organized into a grid.

Silicon circuits in the 386

Before showing the layout of the circuit on the die, I should give a bit of background on the technology used to construct the 386. The 386 was built with CMOS technology, with NMOS and PMOS transistors working together, an advance over the earlier x86 chips that were built with NMOS transistors. Intel called this CMOS technology CHMOS-III (complementary high-performance metal-oxide-silicon), with 1.5 µm features. While Intel's earlier chips had a single metal layer, CHMOS-III provided two metal layers, making signal routing much easier.

Because CMOS uses both NMOS and PMOS transistors, fabrication is more complicated. In an MOS integrated circuit, a transistor is formed where a polysilicon wire crosses active silicon, creating the transistor's gate. A PMOS transistor is constructed directly on the silicon substrate (which is N-doped). However, an NMOS transistor is the opposite, requiring a P-doped substrate. This is created by forming a P well, a region of P-doped silicon that holds NMOS transistors. Each P well must be connected to ground; this is accomplished by connecting ground to specially-doped regions of the P well, called "well taps"`.

The diagram below shows a cross-section through two transistors, showing the layers of the chip. There are four important layers: silicon (which has some regions doped to form active silicon), polysilicon for wiring and transistors, and the two metal layers. At the bottom is the silicon, with P or N doping; note the P-well for the NMOS transistor on the left. Next is the polysilicon layer. At the top are the two layers of metal, named M1 and M2. Conceptually, the chip is constructed from flat layers, but the layers have a three-dimensional structure influenced by the layers below. The layers are separated by silicon dioxide ("ox") or silicon oxynitride4; the oxynitride under M2 caused me considerable difficulty.

A cross-section of circuitry formed with the CHMOS-III process. From A double layer metal CHMOS III technology.

The image below shows how circuitry appears on the die;5 I removed the metal layers to show the silicon and polysilicon that form transistors. (As will be described below, this image shows two static cells, holding two bits.) The pinkish and dark regions are active silicon, doped to take part in the circuits, while the "background" silicon can be ignored. The green lines are polysilicon lines on top of the silicon. Transistors are the most important feature here: a transistor gate is formed when polysilicon crosses active silicon, with the source and drain on either side. The upper part of the image has PMOS transistors, while the lower part of the image has the P well that holds NMOS transistors. (The well itself is not visible.) In total, the image shows four PMOS transistors and 12 NMOS transistors. At the bottom, the well taps connect the P well to ground. Although the metal has been removed, the contacts between the lower metal layer (M1) and the silicon or polysilicon are visible as faint circles.

A (heavily edited) closeup of the die.

Register layout in the 386

Next, I'll explain the layout of these cells in the 386. To increase the circuit density, two cells are put side-by-side, with a mirrored layout. In this way, each row holds two interleaved registers.6 The schematic below shows the arrangement of the paired cells, matching the die image above. Transistors A and B form the first inverter,7 while transistors C and D form the second inverter. Pass transistors E and F allow the bitlines to write the cell. For reading, transistor G amplifies the signal while pass transistor H connects the selected bit to the output.

Schematic of two static cells in the 386. The schematic approximately matches the physical layout.

The left and right sides are approximately mirror images, with separate read and write control lines for each half. Because the control lines for the left and right sides are in different positions, the two sides have some layout differences, in particular, the bulging loop on the right. Mirroring the cells increases the density since the bitlines can be shared by the cells.

The diagram below shows the various components on the die, labeled to match the schematic above. I've drawn the lower M1 metal wiring in blue, but omitted the M2 wiring (horizontal control lines, power, and ground). "Read crossover" indicates the connection from the read output on the left to the bitline on the right. Black circles indicate vias between M1 and M2, green circles indicate contacts between silicon and M1, and reddish circles indicate contacts between polysilicon and M1.

The layout of two static cells. The M1 metal layer is drawn in blue; the horizontal M2 lines are not shown.

One more complication is that alternating registers (i.e. rows) are reflected vertically, as shown below. This allows one horizontal power line to feed two rows, and similarly for a horizontal ground line. This cuts the number of power/ground lines in half, making the layout more efficient.

Multiple storage cells.

Having two layers of metal makes the circuitry considerably more difficult to reverse engineer. The photo below (left) shows one of the static RAM cells as it appears under the microscope. Although the structure of the metal layers is visible in the photograph, there is a lot of ambiguity. It is difficult to distinguish the two layers of metal. Moreover, the metal completely hides the polysilicon layer, not to mention the underlying silicon. The large black circles are vias between the two metal layers. The smaller faint circles are contacts between a metal layer and the underlying silicon or polysilicon.

One cell as it appears on the die, with a diagram of the upper (M2) and lower (M1) metal layers.

With some effort, I determined the metal layers, which I show on the right: M2 (upper) and M1 (lower). By comparing the left and right images, you can see how the structure of the metal layers is somewhat visible. I use black circles to indicate vias between the layers, green circles indicate contacts between M1 and silicon, and pink circles indicate contacts between M1 and polysilicon. Note that both metal layers are packed as tightly as possible. The layout of this circuit was highly optimized to minimize the area. It is interesting to note that decreasing the size of the transistors wouldn't help with this circuit, since the size is limited by the metal density. This illustrates that a fabrication process must balance the size of the metal features, polysilicon features, and silicon features since over-optimizing one won't help the overall chip density.

The photo below shows the bottom of the register file. The "notch" makes the registers at the very bottom half-width: 4 half-width rows corresponding to eight 16-bit registers. Since there are six 16-bit segment registers in the 386, I suspect these are the segment registers and two mystery registers.

The bottom of the register file.

I haven't been able to determine which registers in the 386 correspond to the other registers on the die. In the segment descriptor circuitry, there are two rows of register cells with ten more rows below, corresponding to 24 32-bit registers. These are presumably segment descriptors. At the bottom of the datapath, there are 10 32-bit registers with the T8 circuit. The 386's programmer-visible registers consist of eight general-purpose 32-bit registers (EAX, etc.). The 386 has various control registers, test registers, and segmentation registers8 that are not well known. The 8086 has a few registers for internal use that aren't visible to the programmer, so the 386 presumably has even more invisible registers. At this point, I can't narrow down the functionality.

Conclusions

It's interesting to examine how registers are implemented in a real processor. There are plenty of descriptions of the 8T static cell circuit, but it turns out that the physical implementation is more complicated than the theoretical description. Intel put a lot of effort into optimizing this circuit, resulting in a dense block of circuitry. By mirroring cells horizontally and vertically, the density could be increased further.

Reverse engineering one small circuit of the 386 turned out to be pretty tricky, so I don't plan to do a complete reverse engineering. The main difficulty is the two layers of metal are hard to untangle. Moreover, I lost most of the polysilicon when removing the metal. Finally, it is hard to draw diagrams with four layers without the diagram turning into a mess, but hopefully the diagrams made sense.

I plan to write more about the 386, so follow me on Twitter @kenshirriff or RSS for updates. I'm also on Mastodon occasionally as @[email protected].

Notes and references

1. Typically the write driver circuit generates a strong low on one of the bitlines, flipping the corresponding inverter to a high output. As soon as one inverter flips, it will force the other inverter into the right state. To support this, the pullup transistors in the inverters are weaker than normal. ↩

2. The pass transistor passes its signal through or blocks it. In CMOS, this is usually implemented with a transmission gate with an NMOS and a PMOS transistor in parallel. The cell uses only the NMOS transistor, which makes it worse at passing a high signal, but substantially reduces the size, a reasonable tradeoff for a storage cell. ↩

3. The bitline is typically precharged to a high level for a read, and then the cell pulls the line low for a 0. This is more compact than including circuitry in each cell to pull the line high. ↩

4. One problem is that the 386 uses a layer of insulating silicon oxynitride as well as the usual silicon dioxide. I was able to remove the oxynitride with boiling phosphoric acid, but this removed most of the polysilicon as well. I'm still experimenting with the timing; 20 minutes of boiling was too long. ↩

5. The image is an edited composite of multiple cells since the polysilicon was highly damaged when removing the metal layers. Unfortunately, I haven't found a process for the 386 to remove one layer of metal at a time. As a result, reverse-engineering the 386 is much more difficult than earlier processors such as the 8086; I have to look for faint traces of polysilicon and puzzle over what connections the circuit requires. ↩

6. You might wonder why they put two cells side-by-side instead of simply cramming the cells together more tightly. The reason for putting two cells in each row is presumably to match the size of each bit with the rest of the circuitry in the datapath. If the register circuitry is half the width of the ALU circuitry, a bunch of space will be wasted by the wiring to line up each register bit with the corresponding ALU bit. ↩

7. A CMOS inverter is constructed from an NMOS transistor (which pulls the output low on a 1 input) and a PMOS transistor (which pulls the output high on a 0 input), as shown below.

   

   A CMOS inverter.

    ↩↩

8. The 386 has multiple registers that are documented but not well known. Chapter 4 of the 386 Programmers Reference Manual discusses various registers that are only relevant to operating systems programmers. These include the Global Descriptor Table Register (GDTR), Local Descriptor Table Register (LDTR), Interrupt Descriptor Table Register (IDTR), and Task Register (TR). There are four Control Registers CR0-CR3; CR0 controls coprocessor usage, paging, and a few other things. The six Debug Registers for hardware breakpoints are named DR0-DR3, DR6, and DR7 (which suggests undocumented DR4 and DR5 registers). The two Test Registers for TLB testing are named TR6 and TR7 (which suggests undocumented TR0-TR5 registers). I expect that these registers are located near the relevant functional units, rather than part of the processing datapath. ↩

Reverse-engineering Ethernet backoff on the Intel 82586 network chip's die

Introduced in 1973, Ethernet is the predominant way of wiring computers together. Chips were soon introduced to handle the low-level aspects of Ethernet: converting data packets into bits, implementing checksums, and handling network collisions. In 1982, Intel announced the i82586 Ethernet LAN coprocessor chip, which went much further by offloading most of the data movement from the main processor to an on-chip coprocessor. Modern Ethernet networks handle a gigabit of data per second or more, but at the time, the Intel chip's support for 10 Mb/s Ethernet put it on the cutting edge. (Ethernet was surprisingly expensive, about $2000 at the time, but expected to drop under $1000 with the Intel chip.) In this blog post, I focus on a specific part of the coprocessor chip: how it handles network collisions and implements exponential backoff.

The die photo below shows the i82586 chip. This photo shows the metal layer on top of the chip, which hides the underlying polysilicon wiring and silicon transistors. Around the edge of the chip, square bond pads provide the link to the chip's 48 external pins. I have labeled the function blocks based on my reverse engineering and published descriptions. The left side of the chip is called the "receive unit" and handles the low-level networking, with circuitry for the network transmitter and receiver. The left side also contains low-level control and status registers. The right side is called the "command unit" and interfaces to memory and the main processor. The right side contains a simple processor controlled by a microinstruction ROM.1 Data is transmitted between the two halves of the chip by 16-byte FIFOs (first in, first out queues).

The die of the Intel 82586 with the main functional blocks labeled. Click this image (or any other) for a larger version.

The 82586 chip is more complex than the typical Ethernet chip at the time. It was designed to improve system performance by moving most of the Ethernet processing from the main processor to the coprocessor, allowing the main processor and the coprocessor to operate in parallel. The coprocessor provides four DMA channels to move data between memory and the network without the main processor's involvement. The main processor and the coprocessor communicate through complex data structures2 in shared memory: the main processor puts control blocks in memory to tell the I/O coprocessor what to do, specifying the locations of transmit and receive buffers in memory. In response, the I/O coprocessor puts status blocks in memory. The processor onboard the 82586 chip allows the chip to handle these complex data structures in software. Meanwhile, the transmission/receive circuitry on the left side of the chip uses dedicated circuitry to handle the low-level, high-speed aspects of Ethernet.

Ethernet and collisions

A key problem with a shared network is how to prevent multiple computers from trying to send data on the network at the same time. Instead of a centralized control mechanism, Ethernet allows computers to transmit whenever they want.3 If two computers transmit at the same time, the "collision" is detected and the computers try again, hoping to avoid a collision the next time. Although this may sound inefficient, it turns out to work out remarkably well.4 To avoid a second collision, each computer waits a random amount of time before retransmitting the packet. If a collision happens again (which is likely on a busy network), an exponential backoff algorithm is used, with each computer waiting longer and longer after each collision. This automatically balances the retransmission delay to minimize collisions and maximize throughput.

I traced out a bunch of circuitry to determine how the exponential backoff logic is implemented. To summarize, exponential backoff is implemented with a 10-bit counter to provide a pseudorandom number, a 10-bit mask register to get an exponentially sized delay, and a delay counter to count down the delay. I'll discuss how these are implemented, starting with the 10-bit counter.

The 10-bit counter

A 10-bit counter may seem trivial, but it still takes up a substantial area of the chip. The straightforward way of implementing a counter is to hook up 10 latches as a "ripple counter". The counter is controlled by a clock signal that indicates that the counter should increment. The clock toggles the lowest bit of the counter. If this bit flips from 1 to 0, the next higher bit is toggled. The process is repeated from bit to bit, toggling a bit if there is a carry. The problem with this approach is that the carry "ripples" through the counter. Each bit is delayed by the lower bit, so the bits don't all flip at the same time. This limits the speed of the counter as the top bit isn't settled until the carry has propagated through the nine lower bits.

The counter in the chip uses a different approach with additional circuitry to improve performance. Each bit has logic to check if all the lower bits are ones. If so, the clock signal toggles the bit. All the bits toggle at the same time, rapidly incrementing the counter in response to the clock signals. The drawback of this approach is that it requires much more logic.

The diagram below shows how the carry logic is implemented. The circuitry is optimized to balance speed and complexity. In particular, bits are examined in groups of three, allowing some of the logic to be shared across multiple bits. For instance, instead of using a 9-input gate to examine the nine lower bits, separate gates test bits 0-2 and 3-5.

The circuitry to generate the toggle signals for each bit of the counter.

The implementation of the latches is also interesting. Each latch is implemented with dynamic logic, using the circuit's capacitance to store each bit. The input is connected to the output with two inverters. When the clock is high, the transistor turns on, connecting the inverters in a loop that holds the value. When the clock is low, the transistor turns off. However, the 0 or 1 value will still remain on the input to the first inverter, held by the charge on the transistor's gate. At this time, an input can be fed into the latch, overriding the old value.

The basic dynamic latch circuit.

The latch has some additional circuitry to make it useful. To toggle the latch, the output is inverted before feeding it back to the input. The toggle control signal selects the inverted output through another pass transistor. The toggle signal is only activated when the clock is low, ensuring that the circuit doesn't repeatedly toggle, oscillating out of control.

One bit of the counter.

The image below shows how the counter circuit is implemented on the die. I have removed the metal layer to show the underlying transistors; the circles are contacts where the metal was connected to the underlying silicon. The pinkish regions are doped silicon. The pink-gray lines are polysilicon wiring. When polysilicon crosses doped silicon, it creates a transistor. The blue color swirls are not significant; they are bits of oxide remaining on the die.

The counter circuitry on the die.

The 10-bit mask register

The mask register has a particular number of low bits set, providing a mask of length 0 to 10. For instance, with 4 bits set, the mask register is 0000001111. The mask register can be updated in two ways. First, it can be set to length 1-8 with a three-bit length input.5 Second, the mask can be lengthened by one bit, for example going from 0000001111 to 0000011111 (length 4 to 5).

The mask register is implemented with dynamic latches similar to the counter, but the inputs to the latches are different. To load the mask to a particular length, each bit has logic to determine if the bit should be set based on the three-bit input. For example, bit 3 is cleared if the specified length is 0 to 3, and set otherwise. The lengthening feature is implemented by shifting the mask value to the left by one bit and inserting a 1 into the lowest bit.

The schematic below shows one bit of the mask register. At the center is a two-inverter latch as seen before. When the clock is high, it holds its value. When the clock is low, the latch can be loaded with a new value. The "shift" line causes the bit from the previous stage to be shifted in. The "load" line loads the mask bit generated from the input length. The "reset" line clears the mask. At the right is the NAND gate that applies the mask to the count and inverts the result. As will be seen below, these NAND gates are unusually large.

One stage of the mask register.

The logic to set a mask bit based on the length input is shown below.6 The three-bit "sel" input selects the mask length from 1 to 8 bits; note that the mask0 bit is always set while bits 8 and 9 are cleared.7 Each set of gates energizes the corresponding mask line for the appropriate inputs.

The control logic to enable mask bits based on length.

The diagram below shows the mask register on the die. I removed the metal layer to show the underlying silicon and polysilicon, so the transistors are visible. On the left are the NAND gates that combine each bit of the counter with the mask. Note that large snake-like transistors; these larger transistors provide enough current to drive the signal over the long bus to the delay counter register at the bottom of the chip. Bit 0 of the mask is always set, so it doesn't have a latch. Bits 8 and 9 of the mask are only set by shifting, not by selecting a mask length, so they don't have mask logic.8

The mask register on the die.

The delay counter register

To generate the pseudorandom exponential backoff, the counter register and the mask register are NANDed together. This generates a number of the desired binary length, which is stored in the delay counter. Note that the NAND operation inverts the result, making it negative. Thus, as the delay counter counts up, it counts toward zero, reaching zero after the desired number of clock ticks.

The implementation of the delay counter is similar to the first counter, so I won't include a schematic. However, the delay counter is attached to the register bus, allowing its value to be read by the chip's CPU. Control lines allow the delay counter's value to pass onto the register bus.

The diagram below shows the locations of the counter, mask, and delay register on the die. In this era, something as simple as a 10-bit register occupied a significant part of the die. Also note the distance between the counter and mask and the delay register at the bottom of the chip. The NAND gates for the counter and mask required large transistors to drive the signal across this large distance.

The die, with counter, mask, and delay register.

Conclusions

The Intel Ethernet chip provides an interesting example of how a real-world circuit is implemented on a chip. Exponential backoff is a key part of the Ethernet standard. This chip implements backoff with a simple but optimized circuit.9

A high-resolution image of the die with the metal removed. (Click for a larger version.) Some of the oxide layer remains, causing colored regions due to thin-film interference.

For more chip reverse engineering, follow me on Twitter @kenshirriff or RSS for updates. I'm also on Mastodon occasionally as @[email protected]. Acknowledgments: Thanks to Robert Garner for providing the chip and questions.

Notes and references

1. I think the on-chip processor is a very simple processor that doesn't match other Intel architectures. It is described as executing microcode. I don't think this is microcode in the usual sense of machine instructions being broken down into microcode. Instead, I think the processor's instructions are primitive, single-clock instructions that are more like micro-instructions than machine instructions. ↩

2. The diagram below shows the data structures in shared memory for communication between the main processor and the coprocessor. The Command List specifies the commands that the coprocessor should perform. The Receive Frame area provides memory blocks for incoming network packets.

   

   A diagram of the 82586 shared memory structures, from the 82586 datasheet.

   I think Intel was inspired by mainframe-style I/O channels, which moved I/O processing to separate processors communicating through memory. Another sign of Intel's attempts to move mainframe technology to microprocessors was the ill-fated iAPX 432 processor, which Intel called a "micro-mainframe." (I discuss the iAPX 432 as part of this blog post.)

    ↩

3. An alternative approach to networking is token-ring, where the computers in the network pass a token from machine to machine. Only the machine with the token can send a packet on the network, ensuring collision-free transmission. I looked inside an IBM token-ring chip in this post. ↩

4. Ethernet's technique is called CSMA/CD (Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Detection). The idea of Carrier Sense is that the "carrier" signal on the network indicates that the network is in use. Each computer on the network listens for the lack of carrier before transmitting, which avoids most collisions. However, there is still a small chance of collision. (In particular, the speed of light means that there is a delay on a long network between when one computer starts transmitting and when a second computer can detect this transmission. Thus, both computers can think the network is free while the other computer is transmitting. This factor also imposes a maximum length on an Ethernet network segment: if the network is too long, a computer can finish transmitting a packet before the collision occurs, and it won't detect the collision.) Modern Ethernet has moved from the shared network to a star topology that avoids collisions. ↩

5. The length of the mask is one more than the three-bit length input. E.g. An input of 7 sets eight mask bits. ↩

6. The mask generation logic is a bit tricky to understand. You can try various bit combinations to see how it works. The logic is easier to understand if you apply De Morgan's law to change the NOR gates to AND gates, which also removes the negation on the inputs. ↩

7. The control line appears to enable or disable mask selection but its behavior is inexplicably negated on bit 1. ↩

8. The circuitry below the counter appears to be a state machine that is unrelated to the exponential backoff. From reverse engineering, my hypothesis is that the counter is reused by the state machine: it both generates pseudorandom numbers for exponential backoff and times events when a packet is being received. In particular, it has circuitry to detect when the counter reaches 9, 20, and 48, and takes actions at these values.

   The state itself is held in numerous latches. The new state is computed by a PLA (Programmable Logic Array) below and to the right of the counter along with numerous individual gates. ↩

9. One drawback of this exponential backoff circuit is that the pseudorandom numbers are completely synchronous. If two network nodes happen to be in the exact same counter state when they collide, they will go through the same exponential backoff delays, causing a collision every time. While this may seem unlikely, it apparently happened occasionally during use. The LANCE Ethernet chip from AMD used a different approach. Instead of running the pseudorandom counter from the highly accurate quartz clock signal, the counter used an on-chip ring oscillator that was deliberately designed to be inaccurate. This prevented two nodes from locking into inadvertent synchronization. ↩

Examining the silicon dies of the Intel 386 processor

You might think of the Intel 386 processor (1985) as just an early processor in the x86 line, but the 386 was a critical turning point for modern computing in several ways.1 First, the 386 moved the x86 architecture to 32 bits, defining the dominant computing architecture for the rest of the 20th century. The 386 also established the overwhelming importance of x86, not just for Intel, but for the entire computer industry. Finally, the 386 ended IBM's control over the PC market, turning Compaq into the architectural leader.

In this blog post, I look at die photos of the Intel 386 processor and explain what they reveal about the history of the processor, such as the move from the 1.5 µm process to the 1 µm process. You might expect that Intel simply made the same 386 chip at a smaller scale, but there were substantial changes to the chip's layout, even some visible to the naked eye.2 I also look at why the 386 SL had over three times the transistors as the other 386 versions.3

The 80386 was a major advancement over the 286: it implemented a 32-bit architecture, added more instructions, and supported 4-gigabyte segments. The 386 is a complicated processor (by 1980s standards), with 285,000 transistors, ten times the number of the original 8086.4 The 386 has eight logical units that are pipelined5 and operate mostly autonomously.6 The diagram below shows the internal structure of the 386.7

The 386 with the main functional blocks labeled. Click this image (or any other) for a larger version. I created this image using a die photo from Antoine Bercovici.

The heart of a processor is the datapath, the components that hold and process data. In the 386, these components are in the lower left: the ALU (Arithmetic/Logic Unit), a barrel shifter to shift data, and the registers. These components form regular rectangular blocks, 32 bits wide. The datapath, along with the circuitry to the left that manages it, forms the Data Unit. In the lower right is the microcode ROM, which breaks down machine instructions into micro-instructions, the low-level steps of the instruction. The microcode ROM, along with the microcode engine circuitry, forms the Control Unit.

The 386 has a complicated instruction format. The Instruction Decode Unit breaks apart an instruction into its component parts and generates a pointer to the microcode that implements the instruction. The instruction queue holds three decoded instructions. To improve performance, the Prefetch Unit reads instructions from memory before they are needed, and stores them in the 16-byte prefetch queue.8

The 386 implements segmented memory and virtual memory, with access protection.9 The Memory Management Unit consists of the Segment Unit and the Paging Unit: the Segment Unit translates a logical address to a linear address, while the Paging Unit translates the linear address to a physical address. The segment descriptor cache and page cache (TLB) hold data about segments and pages; the 386 has no on-chip instruction or data cache.10 The Bus Interface Unit in the upper right handles communication between the 386 and the external memory and devices.

Silicon dies are often labeled with the initials of the designers. The 386 DX, however, has an unusually large number of initials. In the image below, I have enlarged the tiny initials so they are visible. I think the designers put their initials next to the unit they worked on, but I haven't been able to identify most of the names.11

The 386 die with the initials magnified.

The shrink from 1.5 µm to 1 µm

The original 386 was built on a process called CHMOS-III that had 1.5 µm features (specifically the gate channel length for a transistor). Around 1987, Intel moved to an improved process called CHMOS-IV, with 1 µm features, permitting a considerably smaller die for the 386. However, shrinking the layout wasn't a simple mechanical process. Instead, many changes were made to the chip, as shown in the comparison diagram below. Most visibly, the Instruction Decode Unit and the Protection Unit in the center-right are horizontal in the smaller die, rather than vertical. The standard-cell logic (discussed later) is considerably more dense, probably due to improved layout algorithms. The data path (left) was highly optimized in the original so it remained essentially unchanged, but smaller. One complication is that the bond pads around the border needed to remain the same size so bond wires could be attached. To fit the pads around the smaller die, many of the pads are staggered. Because different parts of the die shrank differently, the blocks no longer fit together as compactly, creating wasted space at the bottom of the die. For some reason, the numerous initials on the original 386 die were removed. Finally, the new die was labeled 80C386I with a copyright date of 1985, 1987; it is unclear what "C" and "I" indicate.

Comparison of the 1.5 µm die and the 1 µm die at the same scale. Photos courtesy of Antoine Bercovici.

The change from 1.5 µm to 1 µm may not sound significant, but it reduced the die size by 60%. This allowed more dies on a wafer, substantially dropping the manufacturing cost.12 The strategy of shrinking a processor to a new process before designing a new microarchitecture for the process became Intel's tick-tock strategy.

The 386 SX

In 1988, Intel introduced the 386 SX processor, the low-cost version of the 386, with a 16-bit bus instead of a 32-bit bus. (This is reminiscent of the 8088 processor with an 8-bit bus versus the 8086 processor with a 16-bit bus.) According to the 386 oral history, the cost of the original 386 die decreased to the point where the chip's package cost about as much as the die. By reducing the number of pins, the 386 SX could be put in a one-dollar plastic package and sold for a considerably reduced price. The SX allowed Intel to segment the market, moving low-end customers from the 286 to the 386 SX, while preserving the higher sales price of the original 386, now called the DX.13 In 1988, Intel sold the 386 SX for $219, at least $100 less than the 386 DX. A complete SX computer could be $1000 cheaper than a similar DX model.

For compatibility with older 16-bit peripherals, the original 386 was designed to support a mixture of 16-bit and 32-bit buses, dynamically switching on a cycle-by-cycle basis if needed. Because 16-bit support was built into the 386, the 386 SX didn't require much design work. (Unlike the 8088, which required a redesign of the 8086's bus interface unit.)

The 386 SX was built at both 1.5 µm and 1 µm. The diagram below compares the two sizes of the 386 SX die. These photos may look identical to the 386 DX photos in the previous section, but close examination shows a few differences. Since the 386 SX uses fewer pins, it has fewer bond pads, eliminating the staggered pads of the shrunk 386 DX. There are a few differences at the bottom of the chip, with wiring in much of the 386 DX's wasted space.

Comparison of two dies for the 386 SX. Photos courtesy of Antoine Bercovici.

Comparing the two SX revisions, the larger die is labeled "80P9"; Intel's internal name for the chip was "P9", using their confusing series of P numbers. The shrunk die is labeled "80386SX", which makes more sense. The larger die is copyright 1985, 1987, while the shrunk die (which should be newer) is copyright 1985 for some reason. The larger die has mostly the same initials as the DX, with a few changes. The shrunk die has about 21 sets of initials.

The 386 SL die

The 386 SL (1990) was a major extension to the 386, combining a 386 core and other functions on one chip to save power and space. Named "SuperSet", it was designed to corner the notebook PC market.14 The 386 SL chip included an ISA bus controller, power management logic, a cache controller for an external cache, and the main memory controller.

Looking at the die photo below, the 386 core itself takes up about 1/4 of the SL's die. The 386 core is very close to the standard 386 DX, but there are a few visible differences. Most visibly, the bond pads and pin drivers have been removed from the core. There are also some circuitry changes. For instance, the 386 SL core supports the System Management Mode, which suspends normal execution, allowing power management and other low-level hardware tasks to be performed outside the regular operating system. System Management Mode is now a standard part of the x86 line, but it was introduced in the 386 SL.

The 386 SL die with functional blocks labeled. Die photo courtesy of Antoine Bercovici.

In total, the 386 SL contains 855,000 transistors,15 over 3 times as many as the regular 386 DX. The cache tag RAM takes up a lot of space and transistors. The cache data itself is external; this on-chip circuitry just manages the cache. The other new components are largely implemented with standard-cell logic (discussed below); this is visible as uniform stripes of circuitry, most clearly in the ISA bus controller.

A brief history of the 386

From the modern perspective, it seems obvious for Intel to extend the x86 line from the 286 to the 386, while keeping backward compatibility. But at the time, this path was anything but clear. This history starts in the late 1970s, when Intel decided to build a "micromainframe" processor, an advanced 32-bit processor for object-oriented programming that had objects, interprocess communication, and memory protection implemented in the CPU. This overly ambitious project fell behind schedule, so Intel created a stopgap processor to sell until the micromainframe processor was ready. This stopgap processor was the 16-bit 8086 processor (1978).

In 1981, IBM decided to use the Intel 8088 (an 8086 variant) in the IBM Personal Computer (PC), but Intel did not realize the importance of this at the time. Instead, Intel was focused on their micromainframe processor, also released in 1981 as the iAPX 432, but this became "one of the great disaster stories of modern computing" as the New York Times called it. Intel then reimplemented the ideas of the ill-fated iAPX 432 on top of a RISC architecture, creating the more successful i960.

Meanwhile, things weren't going well at first for the 286 processor, the follow-on to the 808616. Bill Gates and others called its design "brain-damaged". IBM was unenthusiastic about the 286 for their own reasons.17 As a result, the 386 project was a low priority for Intel and the 386 team felt that it was the "stepchild"; internally, the 386 was pitched as another stopgap, not Intel's "official" 32-bit processor.

Despite the lack of corporate enthusiasm, the 386 team came up with two proposals to extend the 286 to a 32-bit architecture. The first was a minimal approach to extend the existing registers and address space to 32 bits. The more ambitious proposal would add more registers and create a 32-bit instruction set that was significantly different from the 8086's 16-bit instruction set. At the time, the IBM PC was still relatively new, so the importance of the installed base of software wasn't obvious; software compatibility was viewed as a "nice to have" feature rather than essential. After much debate, the decision was made around the end of 1982 to go with the minimal proposal, but supporting both segments and flat addressing, while keeping compatibility with the 286.

By 1984, though, the PC industry was booming and the 286 was proving to be a success. This produced enormous political benefits for the 386 team, who saw the project change from "stepchild" to "king". Intel introduced the 386 in 1985, which was otherwise "a miserable year for Intel and the rest of the semiconductor industry," as Intel's annual report put it. Due to an industry-wide business slowdown, Intel's net income "essentially disappeared." Moreover, facing heavy competition from Japan, Intel dropped out of the DRAM business, a crushing blow for a company that got its start in the memory industry. Fortunately, the 386 would change everything.

Given IBM's success with the IBM PC, Intel was puzzled that IBM wasn't interested in the 386 processor, but IBM had a strategy of their own.18 By this time, the IBM PC was being cloned by many competitors, but IBM had a plan to regain control of the PC architecture and thus the market: in 1987, IBM introduced the PS/2 line. These new computers ran the OS/2 operating system instead of Windows and used the proprietary Micro Channel architecture.19 IBM used multiple engineering and legal strategies to make cloning the PS/2 slow, expensive, and risky, so IBM expected they could take back the market from the clones.

Compaq took the risky approach of ignoring IBM and following their own architectural direction.20 Compaq introduced the high-end Deskpro 386 line in September 1986, becoming the first major company to build 386-based computers. An "executive" system, the Deskpro 386 model 40 had a 40-megabyte hard drive and sold for $6449 (over $15,000 in current dollars). Compaq's gamble paid off and the Deskpro 386 was a rousing success.

The Compaq Deskpro 386 in front of the 386 processor (not to scale). From PC Tech Journal, 1987. Curiously, the die image of the 386 has been mirrored, as can be seen both from the positions of the microcode ROM and instruction decoder at the top as well as from the position of the cut corner of the package.

As for IBM, the PS/2 line was largely unsuccessful and failed to become the standard. Rather than regaining control over the PC, "IBM lost control of the PC standard in 1987 when it introduced its PS/2 line of systems."21 IBM exited the PC market in 2004, selling the business to Lenovo. One slightly hyperbolic book title summed it up: "Compaq Ended IBM's PC Domination and Helped Invent Modern Computing". The 386 was a huge moneymaker for Intel, leading to Intel's first billion-dollar quarter in 1990. It cemented the importance of the x86 architecture, not just for Intel but for the entire computing industry, dominating the market up to the present day.22

How the 386 was designed

The design process of the 386 is interesting because it illustrates Intel's migration to automated design systems and heavier use of simulation.23 At the time, Intel was behind the industry in its use of tools so the leaders of the 386 realized that more automation would be necessary to build a complex chip like the 386 on schedule. By making a large investment in automated tools, the 386 team completed the design ahead of schedule. Along with proprietary CAD tools, the team made heavy use of standard Unix tools such as sed, awk, grep, and make to manage the various design databases.

The 386 posed new design challenges compared to the previous 286 processor. The 386 was much more complex, with twice the transistors. But the 386 also used fundamentally different circuitry. While the 286 and earlier processors were built from NMOS transistors, the 386 moved to CMOS (the technology still used today). Intel's CMOS process was called CHMOS-III (complementary high-performance metal-oxide-silicon) and had a feature size of 1.5 µm. CHMOS-III was based on Intel's HMOS-III process (used for the 286), but extended to CMOS. Moreover, the CHMOS process provided two layers of metal instead of one, changing how signals were routed on the chip and requiring new design techniques.

The diagram below shows a cross-section through a CHMOS-III circuit, with an NMOS transistor on the left and a PMOS transistor on the right. Note the jagged three-dimensional topography that is formed as layers cross each other (unlike modern polished wafers). This resulted in the "forbidden gap" problem that caused difficulty for the 386 team. Specifically second-layer metal (M2) could be close to the first-layer metal (M1) or it could be far apart, but an in-between distance would cause problems: the forbidden gap. If the metal layer crossed in the "forbidden gap", the metal could crack and whiskers of metal would touch, causing the chip to fail. These problems reduced the yield of the 386.

A cross-section of circuitry formed with the CHMOS-III process. From A double layer metal CHMOS III technology.

The design of the 386 proceeded both top-down, starting with the architecture definition, and bottom-up, designing standard cells and other basic circuits at the transistor level. The processor's microcode, the software that controlled the chip, was a fundamental component. It was designed with two CAD tools: an assembler and microcode rule checker. The high-level design of the chip (register-level RTL) was created and refined until clock-by-clock and phase-by-phase timing were represented. The RTL was programmed in MAINSAIL, a portable Algol-like language based on SAIL (Stanford Artificial Intelligence Language). Intel used a proprietary simulator called Microsim to simulate the RTL, stating that full-chip RTL simulation was "the single most important simulation model of the 80386".

The next step was to convert this high-level design into a detailed logic design, specifying the gates and other circuitry using Eden, a proprietary schematics-capture system. Simulating the logic design required a dedicated IBM 3083 mainframe that compared it against the RTL simulations. Next, the circuit design phase created the transistor-level design. The chip layout was performed on Applicon and Eden graphics systems. The layout started with critical blocks such as the ALU and barrel shifter. To meet the performance requirements, the TLB (translation lookaside buffer) for the paging mechanism required a creative design, as did the binary adders.

Examples of standard cells used in the 386. From "Automatic Place and Route Used on the 80386" by Joseph Krauskopf and Pat Gelsinger, Intel Technology Journal spring 1986. I have added color.

The "random" (unstructured) logic was implemented with standard cells, rather than the transistor-by-transistor design of earlier processors. The idea of standard cells is to have fixed blocks of circuitry (above) for logic gates, flip-flops, and other basic functions.24 These cells are arranged in rows by software to implement the specified logic description. The space between the rows is used as a wiring channel for connections between the cells. The disadvantage of a standard cell layout is that it generally takes up more space than an optimized hand-drawn layout, but it is much faster to create and easier to modify.

These standard cells are visible in the die as regular rows of circuitry. Intel used the TimberWolf automatic placement and routing package, which used simulated annealing to optimize the placement of cells. TimberWolf was built by a Berkeley grad student; one 386 engineer said, "If management had known that we were using a tool by some grad student as the key part of the methodology, they would never have let us use it. " Automated layout was a new thing at Intel; using it improved the schedule, but the lower density raised the risk that the chip would be too large.

Standard cells in the 386. Each row consists of numerous standard cells packed together. Each cell is a simple circuit such as a logic gate or flip flop. The wide wiring channels between the rows hold the wiring that connects the cells. This block of circuitry is in the bottom center of the chip.

The data path consists of the registers, ALU (Arithmetic Logic Unit), barrel shifter, and multiply/divide unit that process the 32-bit data. Because the data path is critical to the performance of the system, it was laid out by hand using a CALMA system. The designers could optimize the layout, taking advantage of regularities in the circuitry, optimizing the shape and size of each transistor and fitting them together like puzzle pieces. The data path is visible on the left side of the die, forming orderly 32-bit-wide rectangles in contrast to the tangles of logic next to it.

Once the transistor-level layout was complete, Intel's Hierarchical Connectivity Verification System checked that the final layout matched the schematics and adhered to the process design rules. The 386 set an Intel speed record, taking just 11 days from completing the layout to "tapeout", when the chip data is sent on magnetic tape to the mask fabrication company. (The tapeout team was led by Pat Gelsinger, who later became CEO of Intel.) After the glass masks were created using an electron-beam process, Intel's "Fab 3" in Livermore (the first to wear the bunnysuits) produced the 386 silicon wafers.

Chip designers like to claim that their chip worked the first time, but that was not the case for the 386. When the team received the first silicon for the 386, they ran a trivial do-nothing test program, "NoOp, NoOp, Halt", and it failed. Fortunately, they found a small fix to a PLA (Programmable Logic Array). Rather than create new masks, they were able to patch the existing mask with ion milling and get new wafers quickly. These wafers worked well enough that they could start the long cycles of debugging and fixing.

Once the processor was released, the problems weren't over.25 Some early 386 processors had a 32-bit multiply problem, where some arguments would unpredictably produce the wrong results under particular temperature/voltage/frequency conditions. (This is unrelated to the famous Pentium FDIV bug that cost Intel $475 million.) The root cause was a layout problem, not a logic problem; they didn't allow enough margin to handle the worst case data in combination with manufacturing process and environment factors. This tricky problem didn't show up in simulation or chip verification, but was only found in stress testing. Intel sold the faulty processors, but marked them as only valid for 16-bit software, while marking the good processors with a double sigma, as seen below.26 This led to embarrassing headlines such as Some 386 Systems Won't Run 32-Bit Software, Intel Says. The multiply bug also caused a shortage of 386 chips in 1987 and 1988 as Intel redesigned the chip to fix the bug. Overall, the 386 issues probably weren't any worse than other processors and the problems were soon forgotten.

Bad and good versions of the 386. Note the labels on the bottom line. Photos (L), (R) by Thomas Nguyen, (CC BY-SA 4.0).

Conclusions

A 17-foot tall plot of the 386. The datapath is on the left and the microcode is in the lower right. It is unclear if this is engineering work or an exhibit at MOMA. Image spliced together from the 1985 annual report.

The 386 processor was a key turning point for Intel. Intel's previous processors sold very well, but this was largely due to heavy marketing ("Operation Crush") and the good fortune to be selected for the IBM PC. Intel was technologically behind the competition, especially Motorola. Motorola had introduced the 68000 processor in 1979, starting a powerful line of (more-or-less) 32-bit processors. Intel, on the other hand, lagged with the "brain-damaged" 16-bit 286 processor in 1982. Intel was also slow with the transition to CMOS; Motorola had moved to CMOS in 1984 with the 68020.

The 386 provided the necessary technological boost for Intel, moving to a 32-bit architecture, transitioning to CMOS, and fixing the 286's memory model and multitasking limitations, while maintaining compatibility with the earlier x86 processors. The overwhelming success of the 386 solidified the dominance of the x86 and Intel, and put other processor manufacturers on the defensive. Compaq used the 386 to take over PC architecture leadership from IBM, leading to the success of Compaq, Dell, and other companies, while IBM eventually departed the PC market entirely. Thus, the 386 had an oversized effect on the computer industry, shaping the winners and losers for decades.

I plan to write more about the 386, so follow me on Twitter @kenshirriff or RSS for updates. I'm also on Mastodon occasionally as @[email protected]. Acknowledgements: The die photos are courtesy of Antoine Bercovici; you should follow him on Twitter as @Siliconinsid.27 Thanks to Pat Gelsinger and Roxanne Koester for providing helpful papers.

Notes and references

1. The 386 also changed the industry because Intel abandoned the standard practice of second sourcing (allowing other companies to manufacture a chip). AMD, for example, had been a second source for the 286. But Intel decided to keep production of the 386 to themselves. Intel ended up licensing the 386 to IBM, though, as the IBM 386SLC. Despite the name, this was the 386 SX, not the 386 SL. ↩

2. Intel made various keychains containing the 386 die, as shown at CPU World. If you know where to look, it is easy to distinguish the variants. In particular, look at the instruction decoders above the microcode and see if they are oriented vertically (pre-shrink 386) or horizontally (post-shrink 386). ↩

3. The naming of the 386 versions is a bit of a mess. The 386 started as the 80386 and later the i386. The 80386SX was introduced in 1988; this is the version with a 16-bit bus. The "regular" 386 was then renamed the DX to distinguish it from the SX. There are several other versions of the 386 that I won't discuss here, such as the EX, CXSB, and 80376. See Wikipedia for details.

   Confusingly, the 486 also used the SX and DX names, but in a different way. The 486 DX was the original that included a floating-point unit, while floating-point was disabled in the 486 SX. Thus, in both cases "DX" was the full chip, while "SX" was the low-cost version, but the removed functionality was entirely different.

   Another complication is that a 386DX chip will have a marking like "SX217", but this has nothing to do with the 386 SX. SX217 is an Intel S-Specification number, which specifies the particular stepping of the processor, indicating a manufacturing change or if a feature has been fixed or removed. ↩

4. Counting transistors isn't as straightforward as you might think. For example, a ROM may have a transistor for a 1 bit and no transistor for a 0 bit. Thus, the number of transistors depends on the data stored in the ROM. Likewise, a PLA has transistors present or absent in a grid, depending on the desired logic functions. For this reason, transistor counts are usually the number of "transistor sites", locations that could have a transistor, even if a transistor is not physically present. In the case of the 386, it has 285,000 transistor sites and 181,000 actual transistors (source), so over 100,000 reported transistors don't actually exist.

   I'll also point out that most sources claim 275,000 transistors for the 386. My assumption is that 285,000 is the more accurate number (since this source distinguishes between transistor sites and physical transistors), while 275,000 is the rounded number. ↩

5. The 386's independent, pipelined functional units provide a significant performance improvement and the pipeline can be executing up to eight instructions at one time. For instance, the 386's microcode engine permits some overlap between the end of one instruction and the beginning of the next, an overlap that speeds up the processor by about 9%. But note that instructions are still executed sequentially, taking multiple clocks per instruction, so it is nothing like the superscalar execution introduced in the Pentium. ↩

6. The diagram of the 386 die shows eight functional units. It can be compared to the block diagram below, which shows how the units are interconnected.

   

   Block diagram of the 386. From The Intel 80386—Architecture and Implementation.

    ↩

7. My labeled die diagram combines information from two Intel papers: The Intel 80386—Architecture and Implementation and Design and Test of the 80386. The former paper describes the eight functional units. The latter paper provides more details, but only shows six functional units. (The Control Unit and Data Unit are combined into the Execution Unit, while the Protection Test Unit is dropped as an independent unit.) Interestingly, the second paper is by Patrick Gelsinger, who is now CEO of Intel. Pat Gelsinger also wrote "80386 Tapeout - Giving Birth to an Elephant", which says there are nine functional units. I don't know what the ninth unit is, maybe the substrate bias generator? In any case, the count of functional units is flexible.

   

   Patrick Gelsinger's biography from his 80386 paper.

    ↩

8. The 386 has a 16-byte prefetch queue, but apparently only 12 bytes are used due to a pipeline bug (details). ↩

9. Static checks for access violations are performed by the Protection Test Unit, while dynamic checks are performed by the Segment Unit and the Paging Unit. ↩

10. The 386 was originally supposed to have an on-chip cache, but there wasn't room and the cache was dropped in the middle of the project. As it was, the 386 die barely fit into the lithography machine's field of view. ↩

11. It kind of looks like the die has the initials ET next to a telephone. Could this be a reference to the movie E.T. and its catchphrase "E.T. phone home"? "SEC" must be senior mask designer Shirley Carter. "KF" is engineer Kelly Fitzpatrick. "PSR" is probably Paul S. Ries who designed the 386's paging unit. ↩

12. I think that Intel used a 6" (150mm) wafer for the 386. With a 10mm×10mm die, about 128 chips would fit on a wafer. But with a 6mm×6.5mm die, about 344 would fit on a wafer, over 2.5 times as many. (See Die per wafer estimator.) ↩

13. The 286 remained popular compared to the 386, probably due to its lower price. It wasn't until 1991 that the number of 386 units sold exceeded the 286 (source). Intel's revenue for the 386 was much, much higher than for the 286 though (source). ↩

14. The "SuperSet" consisted of the 386 SL along with the 82360SL peripheral I/O chip. The I/O chip contained various ISA bus peripherals, taking the place of multiple chips such as the 8259 that dated back to the 8080 processor. The I/O chip included DMA controllers, timers, interrupt controllers, a real time clock, serial ports, and a parallel port. It also had a hard disk interface, a floppy disk controller, and a keyboard controller. ↩

15. The 386 SL transistor count is from the Intel Microprocessor Quick Reference Guide, which contains information on most of Intel's processors. ↩

16. The 186 processor doesn't fit cleanly into the sequence of x86 processors. Specifically, the 186 is an incompatible side-branch, rather than something in the 286, 386, 486 sequence. The 186 was essentially an 8086 that included additional functionality (clock generator, interrupt controller, timers, etc.) to make it more suitable for an emedded system. The 186 was used in some personal computers, but it was incompatible with the IBM PC so it wasn't very popular. ↩

17. IBM didn't want to use the 286 because they were planning to reverse-engineer the 286 and make their own version, a 16-megahertz CMOS version. This was part of IBM's plan to regain control of the PC architecture with the PS/2. Intel told IBM that "the fastest path to a 16-megahertz CMOS 286 is the 386 because it is CMOS and 16-megahertz", but IBM continued on their own 286 path. Eventually, IBM gave up and used Intel's 286 in the PS/2. ↩

18. IBM might have been reluctant to support the 386 processor because of the risk of cutting into sales of IBM's mid-range 4300 mainframe line. An IBM 4381-2 system ran at about 3.3 MIPS and cost $500,000, about the same MIPS performance as 386/16 system for under $10,000. The systems aren't directly comparable, of course, but many customers could use the 386 for a fraction of the price. IBM's sales of 4300 and other systems declined sharply in 1987, but the decline was blamed on DEC's VAX systems.

    

    An IBM 4381 system. The 4381 processor is the large cabinet to the left of the terminals. The cabinets at the back are probably IBM 3380 disk drives. From an IBM 4381 brochure.

     ↩

19. The most lasting influence of the PS/2 was the round purple and green keyboard and mouse ports that were used by most PCs until USB obsoleted them. The PS2 ports are still available on some motherboards and gaming computers.

    

    The PS/2 keyboard and mouse ports on the back of a Gateway PC.

     ↩

20. When Compaq introduced their 386-based system, "they warned IBM that it has but six months to announce a similar machine or be supplanted as the market's standard setter." (source). Compaq turned out to be correct. ↩

21. The quote is from Computer Structure and Logic. ↩

22. Whenever I mention x86's domination of the computing market, people bring up ARM, but ARM has a lot more market share in people's minds than in actual numbers. One research firm says that ARM has 15% of the laptop market share in 2023, expected to increase to 25% by 2027. (Surprisingly, Apple only has 90% of the ARM laptop market.) In the server market, just an estimated 8% of CPU shipments in 2023 were ARM. See Arm-based PCs to Nearly Double Market Share by 2027 and Digitimes. (Of course, mobile phones are almost entirely ARM.) ↩

23. Most of my section on the 386 design process is based on Design and Test of the 80386. The 386 oral history also provides information on the design process. The article Such a CAD! also describes Intel's CAD systems. Amusingly, I noticed that one of its figures (below) used a photo of the 386SL instead of the 386DX, with the result that the text is completely wrong. For instance, what it calls the microcode ROM is the cache tag RAM.

    

    Erroneous description of the 386 layout. I put an X through it so nobody reuses it.

     ↩

24. Intel has published a guide to their 1.5 micron CHMOS III cell library. I assume this is the same standard-cell library that was used for the logic in the 386. The library provided over 150 logic functions. It also provided cell-based versions of the Intel 80C51 microcontroller and various Intel support chips such as the 82C37A DMA controller, the 82C54 interval timer, and the 82C59 interrupt controller.

    

    Die photo of the 82360SL ISA Peripheral I/O Chip, from the 386 SL Data Book.

    Interestingly, the 386 SL's Peripheral I/O chip (the 82360SL) included the functionality of these support chips. Standard-cell construction is visible as the stripes in the die photo (above). Moreover, the layout of the die shows separated blocks, probably corresponding to each embedded chip. I expect that Intel designed standard-cell versions of the controller chips to embed in the I/O chip and then added the chips to the standard-cell library since they were available. ↩

25. For an example of the problems that could require a new stepping of the 386, see Intel backs off 80386 claims but denies chip recast needed (1986). It discusses multitasking issues with the 386, with Intel calling them "minor imperfections" that could cause "little glitches", while others suggested that the chip would need replacement. The bugs fixed in each stepping of the 386 are documented here. ↩

26. One curiosity about the 386 is the IBTS and XBTS instructions. The Insert Bit String and Extract Bit String instructions were implemented in the early 386 processors, but then removed in the B1 stepping. It's interesting that the bit string instructions were removed in the B1 stepping, the same stepping that fixed the 32-bit multiplication bug. Intel said that they were removed "in order to use the area of the chip previously occupied for other microcircuitry" (source). I wonder if Intel fixed the multiplication bug in microcode, and needed to discard the bit string operations to free up enough microcode space. Intel reused these opcodes in the 486 for the CMPXCHG instruction, but that caused conflicts with old 386 programs, so Intel changed the 486 opcodes in the B stepping.  ↩

27. Since Antoine photographed many different 386 chips, I could correlate the S-Specs with the layout changes. I'll summarize the information here, in case anyone happens to want it. The larger DX layout is associated with SX213 and SX215. (Presumably the two are different, but nothing that I could see in the photographs.) The shrunk DX layout is associated with SX217, SX218, SX366, and SX544. The 386 SL image is SX621. ↩